Guns are Bad

This is a discussion on Guns are Bad within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Y'all know I am the new guy trying to get involved with firearms as a hobby, mainly. So topics arise in my mind, or during ...

Guns are Bad

Y'all know I am the new guy trying to get involved with firearms as a hobby, mainly. So topics arise in my mind, or during discussions with those helping me along, or the other side - with family and friends (the title explains the struggle I face).

Tell me if I am wrong or misled about these thoughts:

-guns have gotten a bad reputation in the anti-gun crowd because of the stigma firearms have, as a result of their use in crime......or because owners have been careless or stupid with them and the media including news/hollywood has not helped.
-99.99% of current gun use in this country is for sport or hobby (ie range shooting only for me). (I exclude self defense here because I suspect the times a gun is actually fired for that purpose is small)
-the bad reputation caused by the 0.01% noted above has hurt the 99.99% of owners/users unfairly - just look at the numbers, consider how many people are hurt/killed in any sport.....and guns is way low on that list.
-having said that, a newcomer would be well advised to learn right off to constantly be diligent about owning and handling a firearm, and have immense respect for them, as the consequences of failing in that regard can be as bad as it can get. Only the mature and stable need apply.

If you was to lay a gun down on the ground it would not hurt nobody, mabey my feelings That being said, Bad guys are going to get their hands on guns one way or another,as far as gun owners some gun get stolen it may be avoidable may not guns bad NO.

Y'all know I am the new guy trying to get involved with firearms as a hobby, mainly. So topics arise in my mind, or during discussions with those helping me along, or the other side - with family and friends (the title explains the struggle I face).

Tell me if I am wrong or misled about these thoughts:

-guns have gotten a bad reputation in the anti-gun crowd because of the stigma firearms have, as a result of their use in crime......or because owners have been careless or stupid with them and the media including news/hollywood has not helped.
-99.99% of current gun use in this country is for sport or hobby (ie range shooting only for me). (I exclude self defense here because I suspect the times a gun is actually fired for that purpose is small)
-the bad reputation caused by the 0.01% noted above has hurt the 99.99% of owners/users unfairly - just look at the numbers, consider how many people are hurt/killed in any sport.....and guns is way low on that list.
-having said that, a newcomer would be well advised to learn right off to constantly be diligent about owning and handling a firearm, and have immense respect for them, as the consequences of failing in that regard can be as bad as it can get. Only the mature and stable need apply.

How could an inanimate object be bad? Is a rock bad? Guns are not bad, people are bad!

Part of the thing with guns being stigmatized as tools of crime is because the antis don't own them. Motor vehicles are used in more crimes either as an instrument of the crime, or to facilitate the escape of the perpetrators than firearms are. But the antis would never push for restrictions on motor vehicles, because such restrictions would affect them personally.

As far as 99.99% of current gun use...... That would depend on how you define "use". One of the studies the antis love to cite said that a gun in the home was something like forty seven times more likely to be used against a family member than to kill a burglar. What they don't say is that they had to cherry pick one particular county out of a nation wide survey to find those numbers. They also don't mention numbers for how many times weapons were used against burglars and the burglar was not killed. Or what happens when you subtract the households with convicted felons, or histories of domestic violence from their equations. They don't define how the weapons were "used" against family members either.
So when you talk of "use" you need to define that as shots being fired, the weapon being drawn and aimed, or simply displayed.
Saying 99.99% is sport or hobby would be misleading. You can not discount the defensive carry or actual justified use without allowing the antis to spin it. A more correct figure would be to cite the 0.01% criminal use. That would be much harder for them to spin.

Y'all know I am the new guy trying to get involved with firearms as a hobby, mainly. So topics arise in my mind, or during discussions with those helping me along, or the other side - with family and friends (the title explains the struggle I face).

Tell me if I am wrong or misled about these thoughts:

-guns have gotten a bad reputation in the anti-gun crowd because of the stigma firearms have, as a result of their use in crime......or because owners have been careless or stupid with them and the media including news/hollywood has not helped.
-99.99% of current gun use in this country is for sport or hobby (ie range shooting only for me). (I exclude self defense here because I suspect the times a gun is actually fired for that purpose is small)
-the bad reputation caused by the 0.01% noted above has hurt the 99.99% of owners/users unfairly - just look at the numbers, consider how many people are hurt/killed in any sport.....and guns is way low on that list.
-having said that, a newcomer would be well advised to learn right off to constantly be diligent about owning and handling a firearm, and have immense respect for them, as the consequences of failing in that regard can be as bad as it can get. Only the mature and stable need apply.

Part of the thing with guns being stigmatized as tools of crime is because the antis don't own them. Motor vehicles are used in more crimes either as an instrument of the crime, or to facilitate the escape of the perpetrators than firearms are. But the antis would never push for restrictions on motor vehicles, because such restrictions would affect them personally.

As far as 99.99% of current gun use...... That would depend on how you define "use". One of the studies the antis love to cite said that a gun in the home was something like forty seven times more likely to be used against a family member than to kill a burglar. What they don't say is that they had to cherry pick one particular county out of a nation wide survey to find those numbers. They also don't mention numbers for how many times weapons were used against burglars and the burglar was not killed. Or what happens when you subtract the households with convicted felons, or histories of domestic violence from their equations. They don't define how the weapons were "used" against family members either.
So when you talk of "use" you need to define that as shots being fired, the weapon being drawn and aimed, or simply displayed.
Saying 99.99% is sport or hobby would be misleading. You can not discount the defensive carry or actual justified use without allowing the antis to spin it. A more correct figure would be to cite the 0.01% criminal use. That would be much harder for them to spin.

I was going to say much the same thing but mcp stated it so well I don't think I need to.

I will only elaborate on the facts. It is estimated in some studies that guns are used to stop a crime or attack almost 2.5 million times per year. Most of these, the vast majority in fact, with out a shot being fired.

There is also that associative thing which I have heard some say as such: if you are a one of those 'gun nuts' you are probably a low IQ, knuckle dragging, conspiracy theorist, bambi-killing, rambo-wannabe. Honestly there are people out there who think that way.

There is also that associative thing which I have heard some say as such: if you are a one of those 'gun nuts' you are probably a low IQ, knuckle dragging, conspiracy theorist, bambi-killing, rambo-wannabe. Honestly there are people out there who think that way.

These are the same people who claim to be progressive and open-minded; yet still refuse to have a logical argument. Instead, they cling to emotional arguments and feel secure in their opinion simply because they have friends who believe the same.

They will then introduce some random statistics which on the surface seem to prove their point; however, they are often ignorant of even the basics of statistics which doesn't take a statistician to note - only someone with common sense.

For example, the murder rate in Orlando has, in recent years, become one of the highest in the country. Does that means my neighbors are gunning each other down over not liking how each other's lawns look? No, it COULD, maybe just COULD be that the drug dealers have nearly declared war on each other on the bad side of town.

But of course, we'll just stick to assumptions and emotional arguments instead of looking at the FACTS - something which has even been admitted by our sheriff and chief of city police!

Few things really set me off in this life than lack of logic and rational argument. This extends to many things beyond 2A. Sometimes I get worked up a lot and stressed out over this. I just find it hard to believe how so many people continue to be irrational about so many things, not just guns. Of course, I used to be the same way, but the difference is that I like to always listen to people and will change my beliefs if I find that I was wrong.

I routinely tell people that the precise reason for owning a defensive firearm is to be able to kill people. If I or someone close to me were to be attacked, I need to be able to respond effectively, and with deadly force if necessary. As such, I see the gun as a tool that has an appropriate use in an emergency situation. I've got three fire extinguishers in my house, not because I want my house to burn, but because I don't want it to burn. The gun that shoots the bank teller during a robber is a "bad" gun; but the gun that shoots the rattlesnake that's about to bite the baby's leg is a "good" gun. Really, the gun is a value neutral tool. You can kill a person with a large crescent wrench, but no one's banning crescent wrenches. The pro-crime states and jurisdictions that make such a fuss have a political empire-building agenda based on fear.

Nothing I say as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Legal questions should be presented to a competent attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state.